Most of the "reviews" are aditorials saying how good the product is and some could pass as ad writer copy.

I've read almost every issue over the past few years by grabbing the free copy at the camera stores here in Calgary and there are very few reviews that I would say accurately balance off good versus bad points.

I hope to see an accurate comparison test amongst all 70-200 2.8 stabilized lenses. I don't know what I'd do if the Tamron proves better than my currently owned Sigma 70-200 f/2.8OS which I'm quite happy with. I recently had a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC that I returned due to erratic focus behaviour (plus I'm scared over the Lens Rental article showing one of the internal elements in that lens to work loose) so I'm not certain that if I sold the Sigma that I wouldn't move directly to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II.

ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now. Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place. In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much).

Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't. This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down. It's only advantage at the moment is being a bit lighter and more compact. AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months. I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.

lengendary. I think they should have said "super awesome badass". howabout our bokeh? followed by shots that didn't really show any. then they, the "review" site, come on here and ask for our advise to locate a good reviewer guy so they can get him one of these lenses to review... weird. i know you are the importer, but man... with all that sillyness said, i do hope it all pans out, and that this lens is as good as stated. That'd be great. choice is great.

Right. I owned its predecessor for a while. Not only was it slow to focus (worse as the amount of light diminishes, unsurprisingly), but focusing was inconsistent - sometimes spot on (and when it was the results were excellent), but sometimes not, regardless of what the viewfinder and camera told me (this was on a Pentax K-5, though, which may have had something to do with that). So I would like to see a review by, say, Lenstip, which measures the proportion of "hits" to "misses". I would also like to learn more about magnification at close range and bokeh, two areas where reviews I've seen show the Sigma equivalent to be a safe distance behind the Canon 2.8 Mk II. Photos of the same subject (preferably something other than test charts) taken with different 70-200s for comparison would be nice too....

ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now. Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place. In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much).

Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't. This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down. It's only advantage at the moment is being a bit lighter and more compact. AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months. I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.

Comparing their review of the Tamron with their review of the Canon, it seems they're suggesting the Tamron is optically superior.

It would be pretty revolutionary for Tamron to step up and try to compete on merit alone without a significant price advantage, too. In the US they still have the large price advantage, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other markets.

I'm certainly interested in seeing more reviews, however, particularly ones that directly compare the Tamron to some of the big players.

From the Canon review: "Distortion is minimal at 70mm with Imatast detecting 1.96% barrelling. At 200mm 1.12% pincushion distortion is present, which is a moderate level, but may be noticeable under certain circumstances. At both ends of the zoom the distortion pattern is uniform across the image area, which should make it simple to correct in image editing software afterwards. "

From the Tamron review: "Distortion is very well controlled throughout the zoom range. At 70mm only 0.645% barrel distortion is present, which is replaced with 0.42% pincushion distortion at 200mm. If straight lines are paramount, then you'll be pleased to learn that the distortion pattern is uniform across the frame, making it relatively easy to correct in image editing software afterwards, although this distortion is so mild, very few people will actually need to apply any corrections."

It would be pretty revolutionary for Tamron to step up and try to compete on merit alone without a significant price advantage, too. In the US they still have the large price advantage, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other markets.

I'm certainly interested in seeing more reviews, however, particularly ones that directly compare the Tamron to some of the big players.

infact the 24-70 vc from tamron costs half the price of the 24-70 ii from canon...and maybe is a better lens in various aspects

third partyies like canon and signa cannot compete with original manufacturers like canon and nikon because peoples prefer to buy "originals" insted of "copies" (tis is the popula belief...tragic)

I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount. Drawbacks: no manual override,But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime (not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass. Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...

I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount. Drawbacks: no manual override,But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime (not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass. Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...

No manual override? That conclusion differs from all the reports we have had so far. Lenses equipped with Tamron's USD motor all have full time manual override.

I'm more concerned about the early reports that the lens is significantly shorter than other 70-200mm zooms. I find that a big deal!

I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount. Drawbacks: no manual override,But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime (not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass. Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...

No manual override? That conclusion differs from all the reports we have had so far. Lenses equipped with Tamron's USD motor all have full time manual override.

I'm more concerned about the early reports that the lens is significantly shorter than other 70-200mm zooms. I find that a big deal!